One other critical point that I thought deserved its own reply rather than an edit to my most recent post is the fact that roughly 35% of the revenues in the NHL are based on what the 6 Canadian teams do. Now remember revenues in the NHL are reported in USD. In the last year or so we have seen the CAD dollar drop to about 75 cents. It is no longer on par. Therefore, the amount of revenue the CAD teams bring in is now lower in USD. It will mean lower revenue for the NHL since almost 1/3 of all revenue generated in the NHL is from the 6 Canadian teams.
The only conclusion will be that the 2% growth GB thinks the NHL is getting from last year will be offset easily by the drop in CAD dollar.
I am going to re-hijack this thread to be about playing GM rather than about the CAP though. We have got way off the original intent of the post. If you wish to discuss the CAP and other revenue related items you can post in the Business of Hockey section.
I stand corrected. I did put the wrong years in for the CAP hits. I do apologize for that. However, you still believe that the CAP is actually going to go up? All based on what GB says? I highly doubt that, if anything it will stay the same. I do not have any proof that it will be 55m just from what I have heard on talk shows from various insiders and commentators that I have always known to be truthful in what they say. Plus I have a really hard time trusting anything GB says.
With at least 10 teams in financial trouble and the Phoenix debacle isn't it about time we all realize that Betman is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is saying one thing to the media and a completely different thing to the owners. Everything is ok and hunky-dory just isn't going to cut it anymore.
Also, the reason teams like TB, Phoenix and Colorado lower ticket prices during the season is because revenue sharing is based off of 2 things, your salary CAP and ticket sales. If you don't believe me Moyes the perceived owner of the Coyotes supposedly was buying up is own teams tickets in order to increase is revenue share. That is how desperate he was.
Again, I do apologize again for misrepresenting the years. I am however, not unaware of how the CBA works.act The percent that goes tot he players has yet to be determined because all the revenues are not in yet, therefore it could be 57% or it could be 56% depending on the total revenues. Also, players salaries will not contract if they are over the 20% rule for a players contract if the CAP goes down. This will put a couple of teams in a little bit of trouble when the CAP goes down because they will have players really close to 20% of the CAP. The escrow the players pay into each pay check is also there to help the owners not the players. There is no way the owners let that money go to help with a CAP drop. That money is going back into their pockets to help offset debt, bad signings, and whatever else they can think of. It will definitely not be used to offset a CAP drop.
TV deals will not be as rich as GB thinks. One, ESPN knows full well that the ratings in the US are crap except in a few northern states. Two, after bowing out of resigning up after the lockout they have seen the numbers on NBC and no hockey doesn't bring the numbers unless it is in Canada. So, the money garnered from a deal with ESPN will not be a lot.
I do not know enough about the corporate deals that teams sign to comment on those so I will leave those be.
I don't want to dwell on things too long. But again, you still had a misconception on how the escrow account works. You also MISunderstood what I said. Its for a drop IN REVENUES. That's the reason WHY the drop in the cap won't be high. The escrow accounts would be used for a drop in revenues for the simple reason that it does leviate the contracts that would go up the 20% of team's cap rule. Why wouldn't it be used for a drop in revenues? Its the perfect tool for this. The owners wouldn't lose with that, they'd be ASSURED that the players don't make more than 57% of revenues. The escrow accounts is on a set % of the net pay.
Let's say the league has made 2,4 billion in profits, while the cap they put out estimated a revenue of 2,5 billion, and the players finally had 1,4 billion in salary, this mean they would have made 58,33% of revenues. The escrow accounts would leviate the loss by taking away 1,33% of the players salaries, on an even % to all the players. This is a way more effective tool than dropping the cap significantly like you said they will.
Also, Bettman said himself that the cap for next season could go up 5%, and this all depends on if the players chose, in tandem with the league, to accept this 5% upgrade, or else the cap might be the same next season as it was this season.
But whether you trust Bettman or not doesn't change the fact that he would be shooting himself in the foot if he said there was an increase in 5% of total revenues and then the numbers came out and it wasn't true, both the board of govs AND the NHLPA would want his head on a platter. It just makes no sense as the numbers become public record because of the CBA, and he never lied about that in previous seasons and I don't see any purpose of lying about that, especially since he's against the push by the NHLPA to have ESPN while he wants to stay with VERSUS for the remaining two years of the contract, if anything else, he would try to lie and say the revenues are down so that ESPN would be less interested. Anyway, both ways, there is still no sense in doing this as the numbers will be reflected on the next cap.
As for the Canadian $... the US $ dollar went up compared to the Canadian, meaning that expenses will be less for US teams, almost balancing the loss in revenues of Canadian teams of the previous years.
Anyway.... we'll see soon enough as the next cap has to be annouced in the next 5 weeks before FA opens.
Sorry If I added another post about the cap, but it isn't a derailment as much as it is to show that your premise of getting Malkin is not set in stone.